The short version
- "Significantly Not As Described" covers more than a seller misleading a buyer on purpose - it covers any real, material gap between what a listing showed and what actually arrived, honest mistake or not.
- Damaged, faulty, the wrong item entirely, or a genuine mismatch with the listing's own description or photos all fall under the same umbrella, whatever the actual cause turned out to be.
- This category overrides a seller's "no returns" policy specifically - a buyer can still return an item under this heading even when the listing states returns are not accepted.
- The seller pays return postage on a genuine SNAD return, regardless of the listing's stated returns policy - the free-returns cost only applies once the claim is genuine, not automatically to every claim made under this heading.
- The real, practical defence is not a returns-policy setting at all - it is a listing that genuinely, accurately matches what gets sent, since that is what determines whether this category ever applies in the first place.
What genuinely counts as "not as described"
Checked 26 September 2026: this category covers an item that arrives damaged, faulty, the wrong item entirely, or one that does not genuinely match what the listing's own description, photos, or item specifics represented - a genuinely broader net than simply "the seller lied," and one that catches honest mistakes just as readily as deliberate ones. A listing with an inaccurate dimension, a photo of the wrong colour variant, or an item specific that does not match what was actually sent all fall under this heading regardless of whether the error was intentional - the buyer's experience of receiving something that does not match what they were shown is the same either way, and eBay's own policy treats it the same way too.
Why a "no returns" policy does not actually block this
eBay's own guidance is specific that if an item is damaged, faulty, or does not match its listing, the buyer can return it under the Money Back Guarantee "even if your return policy states that you don't accept returns." A seller's stated returns policy genuinely governs a buyer's change of mind - deciding they no longer want an item that was accurately described - but it has no bearing at all on a genuine SNAD case. This is worth being precise about, because it is easy to assume a "no returns, all sales final" listing setting offers broader protection than it actually does; it protects against a buyer changing their mind, not against a buyer receiving something that genuinely did not match the listing.
The postage cost follows the same logic: eBay's guidance is that the seller pays return postage on a genuine damaged, faulty, or not-as-described return, regardless of the listing's own returns policy - one of the few places where "free returns" applies whether or not a seller ever offered it.
Why the actual defence is accuracy, not policy wording
Since a returns-policy setting has no power over a genuine SNAD claim, the only thing that actually reduces how often this category applies is a listing that is honestly, specifically accurate to what gets sent - correct dimensions, genuinely representative photos, item specifics filled in properly rather than defaulted or guessed. A seller cannot write their way out of this exposure through returns-policy wording; they can only reduce it by closing the actual gap between what a listing shows and what a buyer receives.
What a genuine SNAD return actually does to seller standing
Checked 27 September 2026, directly against eBay's own seller performance overview: a seller's level - Below Standard, Above Standard or Top Rated - is driven by a specific dashboard breakdown that includes "cases closed without seller resolution" as one of its named factors, alongside transaction defect rate and late delivery rate. This is worth reading precisely, because it means a genuine SNAD return, resolved directly and promptly between seller and buyer with a refund or replacement, is a meaningfully different outcome for a seller's own standing than the same case escalating to eBay stepping in and finding against the seller - the former is an ordinary, resolved return; the latter is what actually feeds the standing-affecting metric. Separately, eBay tracks an "item not as described" rate as its own service metric, compared against a peer group of similarly-sized sellers, rather than folded directly into the seller-level calculation - a genuine SNAD case still matters and is always worth taking seriously in its own right, but resolving it well, quickly and directly with the buyer is a real, meaningful practical difference from letting the same case escalate all the way to eBay stepping in, not a purely cosmetic or symbolic one.
What this does not mean
None of this means every claim made under this heading is automatically accepted at face value - a buyer stating an item was "not as described" still needs a genuine basis for the claim, and a seller disputing one in good faith, with evidence the listing was accurate, is a normal and legitimate part of the wider dispute process. The point worth taking from this specific category is narrower: when the underlying claim genuinely is accurate - the item really does not match the listing - the "no returns" setting was never going to be a defence against it in the first place, so the real prevention has to happen earlier, at the listing itself.
The actual time window this cover runs for
Checked 27 September 2026, directly against eBay's own Money Back Guarantee policy: cover under this scheme runs for 30 days from the estimated or actual delivery date, and a buyer reporting that a purchase doesn't match the listing has that same 30-day window from delivery to request a return under this heading - not an indefinite window, and not tied to, or limited by, a seller's own separately stated returns period, which can genuinely differ from this specific figure in either direction depending on how it was set. A seller offering a shorter stated returns window for change-of-mind purposes is worth knowing does not shrink this specific 30-day figure for a genuine SNAD case - the two windows exist independently of each other, governed by different parts of the same overall policy.
Why item specifics are part of "described," not just the write-up
It is easy to think of "the description" as only the paragraph of prose text on a listing, and to treat item specifics as a separate, more mechanical formality covered elsewhere. A buyer's actual expectation is built from all of it together - the write-up, the photos, and the structured fields alike - and a genuine mismatch in any one of them can support a real SNAD claim, not only an error in the prose. A colour field set incorrectly, or a material listed wrong, carries the same weight as a wrong sentence in the description itself when it comes to whether what arrived actually matched what was shown.
Why the buyer's own photos usually decide a disputed case, not either side's own account
Checked 28 September 2026: in a genuinely disputed SNAD case where the seller believes the listing was accurate and the buyer disagrees, the practical evidence that actually resolves it is rarely either party's written description of what happened - it's the buyer's own photos of what was received, compared directly against the listing's own original photos and stated specifics. This is worth knowing before a dispute happens, not only during one: a seller's own habit of taking clear, honest photos of the actual item before it is sent, kept on file rather than discarded once the listing goes live, gives a genuine, dated comparison point to weigh against a buyer's own photos if a claim is ever disputed, rather than relying purely on the listing text's own wording to make the case after the fact.
A worked example
A sofa listed as "grey" that is genuinely closer to a blue-grey once photographed honestly in natural light, sent to a buyer expecting a neutral grey to match an existing room: a reasonable SNAD claim, whatever the seller's own returns policy says, because the colour genuinely did not match what a buyer could reasonably expect from the listing. The fix is not a stricter returns policy - it is a more honestly worded and photographed colour description in the first place, which is the only thing that actually reduces how often a claim like this one has a genuine basis at all.
A second, contrasting example from the same category: a buyer claiming a set of dining chairs is "not as described" purely because they have changed their mind about the style once the chairs arrived in the room, with nothing about the listing itself actually inaccurate - correct dimensions, correct material, correct colour, all genuinely matching what was sent. This is a change-of-mind case wearing the language of a SNAD claim, and it is worth a seller pushing back on directly and calmly, with the accurate listing itself as the evidence, rather than accepting an inaccurate label simply because the buyer used it first. The genuine distinction covered throughout this piece - a real, material gap versus an accurate listing the buyer has simply changed their mind about - is worth holding onto in both directions, not just as a shield the buyer can always successfully invoke.
Where this stays worth a person's own care
Sellhelm's own product editor keeps a listing's photos and item specifics organised together and easy to check directly against what a supplier's own page actually shows - genuinely useful groundwork for accuracy, though the honest judgement of whether a specific description or photo fairly represents a specific product stays exactly the kind of thing worth a person's own careful look, not something any tool can fully verify on a seller's behalf.
Questions people ask
Does "item not as described" only apply if the seller lied?
No. It covers any genuine, material gap between what a listing showed and what arrived - damaged, faulty, the wrong item, or a mismatch with photos or item specifics - regardless of whether the error was deliberate or an honest mistake.
Does a "no returns" policy protect against item-not-as-described claims?
No. eBay’s own guidance is that a buyer can return a damaged, faulty, or not-as-described item even when the seller’s listing states no returns are accepted.
Who pays return postage for a genuine "not as described" return?
The seller, regardless of the listing’s stated returns policy - this is one of the cases where return postage is covered whether or not the seller ever offered free returns.
What actually reduces "item not as described" claims?
An accurate listing - correct dimensions, genuinely representative photos, properly filled item specifics - not a stricter returns policy, which has no effect on a genuine SNAD claim either way.